User talk:Regaliorum/Sandpit
Literal translation of Zandbak? Why not use playing gorund? Pierlot McCrooke 09:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Reform proposal I have to be against the citizen change Pierlot McCrooke 09:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC) I would also suggest the following:Abolishing states and governed towns. If you want that only congress can decide laws Pierlot McCrooke 09:36, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :Working on it ; some people want to see more clear citizen regulations, as do I. I like the word 'sandpit'. I picked it up in this jolly song from which I can't remember the name. 09:42, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::But there are many parties that want a 25 edits-requirement for citizenship. Why do you wanta 100-requirement? Pierlot McCrooke 09:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::I thought that 50 useful edits was to vague and thus we should make it more concrete. But anyone can easily make just 50 edits. I guess I don't mind a change. What about '50 edits' (just dropping the useful?) 09:52, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think 50 edits is good Pierlot McCrooke 09:54, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::It isn't too hard to make 50 edits in 4 days, is it? I hope you like the other proposals? 09:56, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I like them, only i want to know the role of Second Camber Pierlot McCrooke 09:59, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I will not propose any changes to the Congress' working. We keep the current system where proposals are made in the First Chamber (with some debate and minor changes) and then voted in the Second Chamber. 10:02, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::You once said you wanted that Second Chamber should be state representation. I think that should be done, because otherwise states would be useless if this sandpit would be passed Pierlot McCrooke 10:05, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :I was indeed a supporter of such a system, but I now question if that would make Lovia more democratic? The main goal of this 'sandpit proposal' is to get more transparency and less bureaucracy. More democracy (Congress) and less accumulation of power (PM/King). 10:17, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::If we dont propose such a system then i think states are useless and need to be abolished Pierlot McCrooke 10:18, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::You remember this big discussion about reform, right? Where all parties had different ideas? If we do to much at once, nothing will happen at all. I suggest that we first vote what is on my sandpitpage and later on, we can vote changes that aren't this widely supported. What do you say? 10:22, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::My support Pierlot McCrooke 10:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Political analysis What is my group? Pierlot McCrooke 18:33, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :I asked myself the same question. You have been with so many different parties it is rather hard to make out. Based upon what I know, I'd put you in the liberal-centrist one. What do you think yourself? 18:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Maybe you could create a neutralist group Pierlot McCrooke 18:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::I could, but that wouldn't tell me much, would it. You aren't the only one who isn't on the list if that is a comfort? 18:46, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::Just do it Pierlot McCrooke 18:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::As I said, I could add an 'indecisive' list but it wouldn't help my analysis. This oversight is only part of a bigger issue: what will be the future course of the Progressive Democrats? 18:49, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Put me in the group then you net requetsed (Liberal centriust)) Pierlot McCrooke 18:51, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::::You have indeed been in that sphere for most of the time. 18:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Quite well I must say your outline is quite perfected. I am somehow glad not to be in the list. If you would have to put me in there - which I think you shouldn't - I probably lean towards the liberal-centrists. In fact, my viewpoints can be compared most to those of Arthur and Lars. Second come Yuri, Andy, the LDers and Oos Wes, I suppose. What I wanted to say: nice outline! 08:43, February 23, 2010 (UTC) :Do you really think you and I have so much in common? There sure are some common influences like Richard Dawkins and Albert Camus (who is really good btw). But how about Sartre, Marcuse, Kruithof, ... ?? I'm afraid I've slipped of too far to the left end of the spectrum. 08:47, February 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Sartre and Marcuse are also part of my background, you know! In fact, I'm quite existentialist. Still, this was not my point. What I was saying, is not that our political backgrounds match (they don't), but that the results of our ideologies into policy ressemble in some ways. Same with Andy, whose on the other side. He is too libertarian for me ideologically speaking, but the outcome of his thoughts does ressemble mine. And please don't forget, Yuri, that my political opinion has become way less classical liberalist last Summer, and has become more social (though not socialist) since last Summer and Autumn, having been introduced to all kinds of leftist theorists. 08:52, February 23, 2010 (UTC) :::I can't speak for all educations, but mine sure is a 'stoomcursus' leftist thought. I myself have moved away from dialectical materialism (marx and creative re-interpretations) towards views based more on ideas, perception and human consciousness. 08:58, February 23, 2010 (UTC) Political currrents Very interesting, though, I am missing the name of our beloved King... --Lars Washington 10:49, March 9, 2010 (UTC) :The King is ought to be neutral, but I doubt that is possible. I know the king well and am (almost completely) sure he would be in the part about liberals. Culturally and normative he would be a progressive liberal, but when it comes to economy and such he slides up to the conservative side. Respecting his supposed neutrality, I'll ad him in a foot note. 11:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC) Please note LOWIA is absolutely not anti-monarchy. We are even in favor of the automatic seat of the king in the government. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:54, March 12, 2010 (UTC)